SAKRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The points that arise for consideration in these Petitions are of far reaching consequences on the implementation of the Karnataka and Reforms Act, 1961 (in short the Act) and therefore by my order dated 15-1-1985 I had invited the members of the Bar who were interested in assisting this Court to submit their views and accordingly in addition to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Respondents in these petitions, S. R. Nayak, P. Ganapathy Bhat, T. R. Subbanna, F. V. Patil, Jayakumar S. Patil, B. Veera-bhadrappa, K. Krishna Bhat, K. Appa Rao, V.V. Upadhyaya, V. T. Rayaraddi, S. R. Bannurmath, K. S. Vyasa Rao, T. S. Ramachandra, Advocates, and Sri B. R. Nanjundiah, High Court Government Advocate, had submitted their arguments and I had the benefit of their views on the points for adjudication in these Petitions.

(2.) The Petitioner in Writ Petitions Numbers 18168 and 18169/1981 claims to be the tenant of the lands bearing survey number 16, measuring 3 acres 29 guntas, and survey number 41/P, measuring 2 acres 19 guntas. He avers that he is an illiterate person who knows only to affix his signature but he was assured by the third Respondent-landlord that he would sell the lands in question to him (petitioner) at a price lesser than the amount that the petitioner had to pay under the provisions of the Act and he was further influenced by the second Respondent-Land Tribunal that in the event of filing an application for grant of occupancy rights he would not succeed since his name was not shown in the Record of Rights, On these grounds it transpires that Respondent-3 brought undue influence on him not to submit his application in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights. However, when he came to know that the assurance held out by Respondent-3 was to prevent him from claiming occupancy rights and the intention of Respondent-3 was to sell the lands to third parties, he filed two applications in Form No.7 one in regard to survey number 16 and another in regard to survey number 41/P and these applications were registered as Case Nos. LRM. 928/79-80 and LRM. 929/79-80. In the meantime, Respondent-3 also filed a civil suit against him in which his defence was that he was the tenant of the lands in question and accordingly the Civil Court framed an issue in this regard and referred the same to the Tribunal. His further case is that since his name did not appear in the Record of Rights as a tenant of the lands though he was in possession of the same as tenant thereof, he gave an application to the Tahsildar to hold the necessary enquiry and to make the necessary entries in the Record of Rights. However, the Tribunal rejected his application to survey number 16 on the ground that his application was belated. It also rejected the second application on the very same ground. But the Tahsildar on 24-2-1981 held, after a detailed enquiry, that he was in possession of the lands as tenant thereof. The case of the petitioner is that even assuming that his application was belated such belatedness was due to the fraud played on him by the landlord. Even assuming that such a belated application was not maintainable for grant of occupancy rights to him he was entitled to the declaration that he was a tenant of the lands under Section 112(B)(b) of the Act and by virtue of such declaration he could have claimed the benefit of Section 77 of the Act.

(3.) Section 77 of the Act deals with the right of the State Government to dispose of the surplus land vesting in it under the provisions of the Act and in particular Sections 45B, 58, 60, 79A and 79B of the Act.